Solunar tables?

[Catt]

On February 13, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Team9nine said:

18.2 - 21.7% accurate

-T9

I'd give em slightly less.

[WRB]

Solunar tables shouldn't be a factor in deciding if you are going fishing. Solunar tables can give you some advanced notice of the active behavior time frame to consider when you are on  the water.  When you are fishing you have real time knowledge of what is actually going on. Solunar active periods may be of help now that you are on the water,  you consider the active time periods and focus effects at you best locations during the brief time window.

Nothing is more accurate then real time observation. If you are having trouble catching bass and start catching them during a peak period, you may believe the tables worked,. If you never consider peak periods they can't help.

Tom

[Catt]

35 minutes ago, WRB said:

Solunar tables shouldn't be a factor in deciding if you are going fishing. 

 

Nothing is more accurate then real time observation.

 

If you are having trouble catching bass and start catching them during a peak period, you may believe the tables worked,. 

Tom

 

[hoosierbass07]

 I bought a solunar table calendar (the one printed in bass Master Magazine.)   It's pretty cool to hang up on the wall for one year and look at it but I didn't buy it again.  I do miss it though so I might buy another one next year.  Was it accurate?  I don't think so, nope.  Plus, I could only fish when I had time to, not when it said the best times were.  In the end it tells you what you probably already know - spring fishing trumps everything.  

[Paul Roberts]

On 2/14/2016 at 10:07 PM, WRB said:

Everyone has a opportunity to observe this years spawn cycle, it hasn't happened yet.

Make you note when the bass moved up onto bed sites, if it's not during the 5 days around the full moon, I' am wrong, if it is than you will know if the full moon affects the spawn.

Tom

I did this. I spent 3 spawning seasons not fishing just observing for spawn initiation, taking temperatures and tallying beds, in a series of small ponds.

Because of the confounding multitude of variables (nature is not a simple place) I cannot say that the moon phases had no effect. One thing I could say though was that major spawn movements could, and did, occur directly between full and new phases.

While I can say that I saw spawn movements sans moon, I also saw large movements during both full and new lunar periods -some quite impressive- for which I couldn't discount lunar influence. However, if you figure in the couple days either side of both the full and new moons you are already accounting for a third of any given month. The chances are that if there are other factors (and there are) they are likely to coincide with some moon phases. If an angler sees a big movement near a moon phase they are likely to proclaim it true. Happened to me too, once upon a time. It was when I started to see phases that did not produce a movement that I started to get suspicious of the quality of my observations, (after a number of years of just shrugging). So, I decided to really look.

There aren't many good rigorous research papers on this either. But here's one, and the title is a spoiler:

http://sfrc.ufl.edu/allenlab/Popular%20Articles/Rogers&Allen_BassTimes.pdf

 

On 2/14/2016 at 10:18 PM, hawgenvy said:

Okay, so they have these solunar tables that are supposed to predict peak feeding times on any given day. Now, they are either statistically significant, or they're not. If they are lets see the statistical data and the analysis. If the data doesn't support their validity, solunar theory is like astrology or fortune cookies. Don't use them.

I am not interested in anecdotal testimony, in claims of improved "confidence" by using the tables, or anything short of analysis by the scientific method.

There appears to be no interest by the scientific community in the "solunar tables" assembled by J Alden Knight. The only attempt I'm aware of, by someone with research background, was done by Ralph Manns. I have tremendous respect for Ralph; He's probably brought more great observations and interpretations on bass behavior to the table than just about anyone before or since. However, he attempted to publish this work in a scientific journal and it was dinged on statistics -they being too weak to support his premise of positive solunar influence on fishing results. He did publish in In-Fisherman and you can read it there.

The problem with trying to assess fishing results is that they are not consistent across anglers and days. Trying to cough up the real reasons why someone did or did not catch fish by hook and line is impossible, simply because the measure (angling) is inconsistent and fraught with so many confounding variables. In my mind (with experience in both realms), the term "scientific angling" is an oxymoron.

[hawgenvy]

3 hours ago, Paul Roberts said:

I did this. I spent 3 spawning seasons not fishing just observing for spawn initiation, taking temperatures and tallying beds, in a series of small ponds.

Because of the confounding multitude of variables (nature is not a simple place) I cannot say that the moon phases had no effect. One thing I could say though was that major spawn movements could, and did, occur directly between full and new phases.

While I can say that I saw spawn movements sans moon, I also saw large movements during both full and new lunar periods -some quite impressive- for which I couldn't discount lunar influence. However, if you figure in the couple days either side of both the full and new moons you are already accounting for a third of any given month. The chances are that if there are other factors (and there are) they are likely to coincide with some moon phases. If an angler sees a big movement near a moon phase they are likely to proclaim it true. Happened to me too, once upon a time. It was when I started to see phases that did not produce a movement that I started to get suspicious of the quality of my observations, (after a number of years of just shrugging). So, I decided to really look.

There aren't many good rigorous research papers on this either. But here's one, and the title is a spoiler:

http://sfrc.ufl.edu/allenlab/Popular%20Articles/Rogers&Allen_BassTimes.pdf

 

There appears to be no interest by the scientific community in the "solunar tables" assembled by J Alden Knight. The only attempt I'm aware of, by someone with research background, was done by Ralph Manns. I have a lot of respect for Ralph. However, he attempted to publish this work in a scientific journal and it was dinged on statistics -they being too weak to support his premise of positive solunar influence on fishing results. He did publish in In-Fisherman and you can read it there.

The problem with trying to assess fishing results is that they are not consistent across anglers and days. Trying to cough up the real reasons why someone did or did not catch fish by hook and line is impossible, simply because the measure (angling) is inconsistent and fraught with so many confounding variables. In my mind (with experience in both realms), the term "scientific angling" is an oxymoron.

Thank you, Paul. If there is no scientific evidence for the validity of the scientific-looking tables of solunar theory, there is insufficient reason in my opinion to pay any attention to it at all. It becomes the angling equivalent of astrology. Some people really believe in astrology, but most scientists regard it as baloney.

[Catt]

50 minutes ago, hawgenvy said:

Thank you, Paul. If there is no scientific evidence for the validity of the scientific-looking tables of solunar theory, there is insufficient reason in my opinion to pay any attention to it at all. It becomes the angling equivalent of astrology. Some people really believe in astrology, but most scientists regard it as baloney.

 

50 minutes ago, hawgenvy said:

Thank you, Paul. If there is no scientific evidence for the validity of the scientific-looking tables of solunar theory, there is insufficient reason in my opinion to pay any attention to it at all. It becomes the angling equivalent of astrology. Some people really believe in astrology, but most scientists regard it as baloney.

Theory: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.

[hawgenvy]

2 hours ago, Catt said:

 

Theory: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.

In modern English the term "theory" can have different meanings. In common usage it may mean a supposition, nearly the opposite of proven fact. But in modern science, "Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge."[1]

In angling, however, and Catt I think you just might agree with me here, it's more like informal reckoning: "My theory is, if I pitch this bigass worm to the shady side of yonder cypress stump, it's gonna be walloped by a big old mama in less than half a second."[2]

Now when you formalize your informal reckoning and put it in fancy tables and such, where you need a calculator and a magnifier to read it, some folks are liable to think you've got some proved science to back up that hogwash. But as we've seen, you don't.[3][4]

References 1) Schafersman, Steven D. "An Introduction to Science".

                    2) Me, after 1 1/2 beers   3) Me again, in cynical mode

                    4) member Paul Roberts, above (thanks again, Paul)

Disclaimer: angling being what it is, a meld of science, technology, art, and the shared experience of  incredible anglers who made the sport what it is today, I have great respect for the skillful anglers of the world, both past and present. And from what I've read and seen how Catt has graciously shared his wealth of experience with those who read this site, Catt is one of those greats.

[F14A-B]

7 hours ago, Catt said:

 

Theory: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.

Exactly, and just because science can't prove it, does not indicate it's a falsehood. You can't prove it's true, but you can't prove it's not true either. 

[Catt]

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. In the context of this discussion the results include generalized explanations of how nature works.

 

Falsifiability or refutability of a hypothesis or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.

The observations of many anglers here negate, nullify, and falsify these charts, tables, clocks, or theories.

 

[Paul Roberts]

1 hour ago, Catt said:

The observations of many anglers here negate, nullify, and falsify these charts, tables, clocks, or theories.

Well... I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Lots of good serviceable observations out there -even compilations of them (i.e. theories). But none that sweep everything in to make it entirely simple, much as we'd like it to be so. Or at least cover all possibilities we could face out there. We ballpark stuff, refine the ballpark, then... fly by the seat of our pants.

I want to add that I really like Tom's Cosmic Clock. Making sense of something so complex and making it visually accessible is no small undertaking. It doesn't answer all our questions but it does provide an insightful starting place for bass anglers.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Paul Roberts
Additional...

[MFBAB]

7 hours ago, hawgenvy said:

In modern English the term "theory" can have different meanings. In common usage it may mean a supposition, nearly the opposite of proven fact. But in modern science, "Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge."[1]

Like The theory of gravity, the theory of relativity.

Anybody ever jump off the roof to test the theory of gravity? I believe in it  

That was pretty funny hawg!

[Catt]

Paul, nowhere have I ever written to throw it all out but by the same token we can not ignore the empirical evidence that contradicts these theories either.

So what do we do?

That's the stump!

MFBAB, the theories of gravity and relativity are repeatable; the ability of an entire experiment or study to be reproduced, either by the researcher or by someone else working independently (peer review). It's one of the main principles of the scientific method and relies on ceteribus paribus (all things being equal or held constant).

[WRB]

It's called fishing for good reasons, if you want a guarantee your in the wrong sport.

 

Tom

[Paul Roberts]

2 hours ago, Catt said:

Paul, nowhere have I ever written to throw it all out but by the same token we can not ignore the empirical evidence that contradicts these theories either.

So what do we do?

We are on the same page, Tommy.

So what do we do? We take Tom's advice and go fishing.  But being what we are, we're always looking for better understanding... and are suckers for shortcuts.

[hawgenvy]

Fishing is a great mixture of sport, art, technology and experience. Most scientists don't have the time, funding, or inclination  to study things that help recreational anglers catch bass. And that's okay with me. I just can't resist trying to debunk pseudoscience when I see it. Because folks might rely on it.

 

[Raul]

1. Anytime is a good time to go fishing
2. Solunar tables, fishing calendars n´stuff like that are the perfect, you can put the blame on them for having a lousy day.

[Catt]

3 hours ago, Paul Roberts said:

We are on the same page, Tommy.

So what do we do? We take Tom's advice and go fishing.  But being what we are, we're always looking for better understanding... and are suckers for shortcuts.

I've read John Knight's Solunar Calender, Tom (WRB) Young's Cosmic Clock, & Doug Hannon's Moon Clock.

I've also studied the spawn under Ken Cook, Shaw Grigsby, & biologist Clarence Bowling. 

I know the moon has something to with it all but to what degree is unknown. 

Ya guys think this discussion is something y'all should read some we've had about the spawn!

There are some members I would love to fish with but I could see me, Paul, Raul, Tom, & Roger setting in front of a fireplace talking till the wee hours!

[roadwarrior]

Well, for more than a decade I have been following these threads here on the Forum. My takeaway is that Prime Time is 10:00 AM- 2:00 PM, low light (dusk & dawn) and at night, So, have brunch around 9:00 AM, a late lunch and dinner by moonlight!

 

[whitwolf]

I'm in the Raul camp in that I simply go fishing as much as I can!  At one time In my life I used to glance at the solunar tables and whatever It said I was usually very aware about that particular time period and "thinking" I would catch the fire out of the fish. I honestly can't point to the time I finally realized, as others have, that some days I did well other days I didn't and those times on that chart meant little. 

As Catt has stated so well there are many  factors, positive or negative, that have an effect on the fish.  There Is one thing I have noticed In the last 30 years; every single time I have come across/seen deer on the way to the ramp I have done quite well. I have no Idea if there's any validity to this but I do know If the deer are active I will catch fish.

Lastly, I think we all want to be Informed, learn as much as we can, and try to put the odds In our favor. I'm right there with everyone else. As a buyproduct of all this Information and the need to process this on the water I tend to lose sight of the fact that the only true failure is not getting out and fishing.